AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 10
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....001-APP-951 & 952-20-21 dated 12.02.2021 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Noida. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Colour Television sets falling under Chapter Heading 8528.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 during the relevant period under the brand name of PANASONIC from 2011 to June, 2017, they were registered with the Central Excise Department. That they were regularly paying the service tax without fail. That the three Show Cause Notices [SCN] were adjudicated vide adjudication order dated 31.08.2018 and the 4th SCN was adjudicated vide order dated 18.05.2020, hence two appeals have been filed against Appellate orders dated 12.02.2021 before the Tribunal. 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otification No.14/2012, ST dated 17.03.2012. That the Additional Commissioner held that in the instant case, the plain interpretation is, to avail the exemption of R & D cess, the two conditions under the Notification has to be satisfied. Therefore, the plea taken by the Appellant that R & D cess was paid even after payment of service is available for exemption, is not tenable and acceptable being against the conditions laid down in the notification i.e. exemption shall be available only if the Research and Development Cess is paid at the time or before the payment for the service and proper documents are maintained to establish the linkage. 5. We find that the Appellant have only mentioned about the provisional figures and tentative dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of CGST Act, 2017. That the first Appellate Authority had confirmed the adjudication order holding that the Appellant had never disclosed at any point of time that they had adjusted R & D Cess before discharging payment for the service to their foreign based company. That the Appellate commissioner had observed that the Appellant has contended that he has correctly- paid the R & D Cess and availed equal amount of exemption of service tax payable on the Royalty amount against import of technical know-how and all records were submitted to the Department, and as such there was no suppression or misstatement of facts with intent to evade payment of service tax. Further, after the amending Notification No.47/2011-ST dated 19.09.2011, conditions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for not paying R&D Cess in time and for availing exemption without such payment of R&D Cess. Further, adjustment of R&D Cess before discharge payment of Service Tax is in clear violation of substantive conditions of exemption Notifications. The Appellant's case is not a case of any bona fide interpretation is as much as wordings of exemption Notifications are very clear, requiring recipient to pay R&D Cess before payment of Service so as to avail exemption. As such, we are inclined to agree with the Adjudicating Authority in respect of the invocation of longer period of limitation. 7. We find that the Appellant had entered into an agreement dated 01.04.2014 for R&D Fee for Import of Technology for technical support for manufacturing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igures and the relevant dates of payment of R&D Cess and the dates of payment of the service. All documents in support had also been submitted and these dates show that due compliance of the conditions in the exemption notification was met. Thus, there was no question of short payment of Service Tax as figures given in the ST-3 were provisional and figures given later at the time of payment of the Royalty after deduction of the Service Tax was the actual figure. Therefore, the figure of Rs.88,16,218/- is the correct figure. We find that the Appellant had paid the R&D Cess as applicable on Royalty payable on technical knowhow and R&D Fee amounts and had thereafter availed exemption of equivalent amount payable as Service Tax on the strength ....